After all of the debate over not negotiating with terrorists, we allow government to allow economic terrorists to drive us into a fear so profound that the distortion of extortion can be converted into a “bail out” mentality.

By any name, it is extortion, pure and simple – by private company or big government.

America cannot afford to operate by extortion – at peace or at war. It threatens the very Constitution that permits big business to form corporations in order to make money. Now, to hold Americans hostage because they did not make money, or because they were negligent or fraudulent is a complete distortion of capitalism based upon democracy and freedom. It rewards bad behavior, and dismisses the importance of regulatory agencies formed to prevent self indulgent bad behavior from being considered legitimate.

For government, and especially the Executive office to participate in this fraud and hostage taking on the American people through allowing the extortion is disgraceful. It is a generosity that lies well beyond the boundaries of generosity, and lies within the territory of stupidity.

It is said there is no cure for stupidity.
And, apparently our government has no cure for extortion, and hostage taking – whether in health care, banking, or any of its other favored prima donnas.

http://www.insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?a=top_news&id=102152

What if the concequences of pissing on those that are owed money, is that they started looking at giving us loans, as being equivalent to giving loans to some banana-republic. We would have to start taking our loans in foreign currency (so we could no longer pay them back by letting the $ fall), and we probably have to pay doubble digit interest rates. What are the effects of having to pay 10% intrest in a country with 40 trillion in debt and a 12 trillion GDP, and no option of just letting inflation carry the debt away? I mean a full 1/3 of the GDP just to pay interest. Taxrates would have to at least double on anybody with a 6 figure income. Would that be better or worse than just handing a few hundred billions to some foreigners, to retain their trust in the US financial system?

How could it be worse? Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah!

In terms of one’s own guts full of boiling anger, does anyone else think Clinton (repeal of Glass-Steagall), Gramm (Leach-Gramm-Whosit Act), Alan Greenspan (Easy-Credit Al), (add your own least favorite here) et. al. would feel any culpability at all should a great part of the world in be in flames as a result of their infinite arrogance/cupidity/stupidity/duplicity (choose one or more)?

Not fucking likely.

My point was that systemic risk might be applied in more than just a financial sense. I am positive that greed, abuse and fraud have been a part of financial systems throughout human history and the exposure of such has not always directly resulted in wars to my knowledge. Some of the comments I have read of late, seem to imply that the U.S. does not need to concern itself with what happens overseas.

What I am trying to point out is that there are a number of regional hot spots in which imploding economies could drive a climate of unrest and militaristic opportunism. I am mad enough about the whole debacle that I would choose, if I could, the option of shutting down the failed institutions and just letting the chips fall where they may. However, I also recognize that it is not realistic for the U.S. as the provider of the world’s reserve currency and the sole military super-power to close our borders, take care of our own financial problems and let the rest of the world muddle through on their own. I see that as dangerously naive and not a realistic option.

What’s a decent tent go for these days anyway?